Macbook Pro 16 - how much do I need?

[Perturabo]

Hello everybody!
After reading quite a bit across the various sources available on the new Macbook Pros without coming to a decisive conclusion I decided to register here and ask my questions where I'd assume a lot of knowledge being present.

I do have an M1 Ipad Pro, but when it comes to laptops and desktop machines, I'm a long time windows user. No brand fanatic, though, but I value performance highly. And right now, the Macbook Pros offer an unrivaled combination of performance, battery runtime, and excellent display.

Which is why I'm considering the purchase of a 16" Macbook Pro.
Use case is photo editing first and foremost, and I might eventually dip my toes into 4k video editing, but consider that a rather distant option. It might have to deal with the occasional mobile gaming session, though.
As for photo editing: frequently used software is Lightroom, Photoshop, and Topaz Denoise, all of which have to work with the rather large files of the Sony A7RV.
General preferences: I prefer battery runtime and screen size over portability, and I don't like waiting for edits to show in images.
Upgrading cycle: I keep using my laptops rather long and only upgrade them when they are either not working anymore or when working with them is sluggish.


My only point of reference is my desktop machine, which runs a 7950X3D, 64GB DDR5 RAM, 2TB SSD, RTX4090, and serves the dual purpose of gaming and photo editing. Everything runs pretty smoothly as can be expected, but with the large RAWs of my camera I frequently see the 64GB filled up to 60-62GB.


Naturally, I've been looking into the Macbook Pro with M3 Max, 64GB unified RAM and 1TB SSD. Given that the RTX4090 in my desktop machine adds another 24GB VRAM and a 64GB M3 Max MBP is at 4.3k already, I was even considering the 128GB version for "future proofing" and due to "it's expensive already, so why not go all the way" symptom.
But: The M3 is not an X64 architecture, and I have absolutely no experience how the loads and requirements of my desktop machine translate to a current-generation Macbook Pro.

So I'm all ears for your recommendations.

 

[MacDevil7334]

OP you might want to have a look at the videos from ArtisRight on YouTube. He tests a number of M3 configurations in a variety of tasks in multiple photo and video editing apps. His videos are very thorough.

It sounds like you have pretty decided on a chip already (M3 Max) and are just down to deciding on RAM. One thing Art finds in his is that photo editing tasks start to see diminishing performance returns in many apps once you get above 32-36 GB of RAM. So I think 64 GB should be fine there. I have the 48 GB configuration and it has no trouble with editing Z8 RAWs with lightroom, photoshop, and many other apps open simultaneously. Memory pressure remains low. Unless you are routinely working with 30 GB+ psd files, I think 64 GB RAM will be plenty for photo editing. For reference, my last system was the M1 Max with 64 GB of RAM and I never once felt like I came close to utilizing it all with photo editing tasks (which is why I felt fine dropping to 48 GB with the M3). Apple silicon really utilizes resources efficiently.

I can’t speak as well to video editing and gaming. But I would think 64 GB would be fine there too, especially if you are mainly working with 4k footage.

 

[Matck06]

Same here with a MBP 16 m3 16/40 48gb no memory pressure even with 300mpx panaroma with LR +PS safari mail spotify etc... Art is right shows that a memory of 32/36 is already optimal unless you use more than 30 or 40 on a PSD file, which is really out of the norm.

 

[Perturabo]

Very helpful replies, thank you very much!
I'll look into the videos recommended, but after your replies it would seem even 48gb should be fine.

I'm not necessarily fixated upon the M3 Max. It simply was the SoC that stood out immediately due to (slightly) more than twice the number of GPU cores. And knowing that, at least with x64 machines, for both high resolution gaming and editing the GPU bottlenecks much earlier than the CPU does it seemed a logical choice.

But as stated earlier: I really lack the experience to extrapolate expectable performance or required specs for Apple Silicon.

If it should turn out that an M3 Pro with 36GB would be perfectly sufficient while offering longer runtimes on battery... Fine for me as well.

Learning about erroneous assumptions is why I came here.

 

[MacDevil7334]

Art's videos will do a good job illustrating the difference in speed between the Pro and the Max chips. After you see that, you really just have to decide whether the extra price of the Max is worth it for what you do.

The jump from the Pro to the Max is a bit more of a challenging decision with M3. With M1 and M2, the Max just got you extra GPU cores (and the options for more RAM and external monitors). But with M3, the Max gets you more CPU and GPU cores (and a different combination of performance and efficiency cores). CPU performance was exactly the same as the Pro chip. For photography, you could kind of justify the Max chip in M1 and M2 because many programs like Lightroom are now using GPU for many tasks. But with M3, the Max gets you more CPU and GPU cores. In my mind, that makes it more attractive than past Max chips, especially with the M3 Pro going to a 6P/6E core layout.

I suggest you watch Art's videos to decide if you need the Max. If you decide a Pro chip is enough, you might look at getting an M2 Pro with 32 GB RAM at a discount (or maybe even an M1 Pro). The M3 Pro chip seems to be more of a side-grade from past Pro chips. But, if you decide you want the Max, then M3 represents a significant jump over past Max chips and is probably worth the extra money over a M2 Max.

Edit: Also, on battery life, the 16" offers such good battery life in general that I consider battery differences between the Pro and the Max chips to be irrelevant. Yes, the Pro chip will have better battery life. But when you are talking about a difference of 1-2 hours average use on a machine that is rated for up to 22 hours battery life, who cares?

 

[danwells]

That A7RV is generating huge files (the largest, in fact, other than medium format), and you're using some pretty intensive software (I don't know Topaz Denoise, but DxO's DeepPrime XD, which I think is a similar algorithm, will eat up all the CPU and GPU you can throw at it and come back for more). It would probably eat up a Cray rather happily, but I don't have one to test, nor do I have a supercomputer-optimized version of DxO .

I'm assuming Lightroom Classic, and not the much more efficient but much less feature-loaded Lightroom CC? Classic is a noted RAM hog. If you're using Lightroom CC, you can go down a couple of notches depending on how hard you're using Topaz and PS.

I'd go with a Max 16/40 with 64 GB of RAM (and disk to taste - get a smaller (1 or 2 TB) drive to save money if you don't mind externals and you aren't using a cloud service that demands that everything is on the internal drive). If your LR catalog is REALLY big, you might want to look at 128 GB. You could probably get away with 48 GB, but the upgrade from 48 to 64 GB is only $200, and I'd take the extra headroom for the modest extra cost...

My reason for avoiding the 14/30 Max is actually as much the RAM as anything. The base model is attractively priced, but has 36 GB of RAM. I don't like the words 36 GB and A7RV in the same sentence... If you had a 24 -30 MP camera and weren't planning to upgrade, I'd recommend the 14/30. By the time you buy the only possible RAM upgrade (to 96 GB) it's actually more expensive than the 16/40 with 64 GB, and I'd rather have the better balanced 16/40 machine than the RAM-heavy 14/30. If they offered a RAM upgrade to 48, 60 or 72 GB (the 14/30 has six RAM channels, and the possible configurations are multiples of six, so they look weird to folks used to thinking in the powers of two), that would be a better-balanced machine worth a look.